RealGM Top 100 List #18

[TMACFORMVP]

His defensive impact in the NBA is questionable at best. ONE season where the team was above league average, but most seasons they were in the cellar defensively. Maybe it's possible to track from missed games (in '80 and '84), if he was just around horrific defensive rosters (he did play with Theus who was an absolute sieve) or if he really had such little impact. He was a good post defender from what I've gathered though, could give KAJ problems sometimes due to his strength/length. Averaging around 2 blks a game in that era is really not that impressive though, almost confusing to me how he averaged so little considering his length/athleticism and role with the team (not like he was asked to score 25+ ppg, though due to his foul prone-ness he'd rarely play 36+ minutes).

Great post. In the #16 thread, I posted some of the numbers that also back up:

So in total for Gilmore's NBA career, his teams went 44-38 (82), 40-42 (82), 31-51 (82), 30-52 (48), 45-37 (82), 34-38 (82), 53-29 (82), 37-45 (64), 41-41 (81). That's for a total of 355-373 for a winning percentage of .487 with Gilmore playing in 685/728 games, meaning he played in 94% of his teams games.

And as you allude to outside of his first season in the NBA, his teams defensively were below average to put it nicely.

76-77: 2/22 | 77-78: 20/22 | 78-79: 16/22 | 79-80: 15/22 | 80-81: 14/22 | 81-82: 17/23 | 82-83: 15/23 | 83-84: 21/23 | 84-85: 17/23

We could maybe apply the same thing we did for Garnett, in putting more critical blame for his teammates, but he didn't really improve the Spurs either. And very interesting take on the ABA career of Gilmore, however I don't think we can correlate his NBA career to his ABA, as the Colonels were very good defensively, and still won the title, despite the semi-failures in the other seasons.

[Doctor MJ]

Greatest offensive dynasty in history? Really? The Showtime Lakers are rolling over in their graves...

PHX was all offense orientated, and built that roster based on that premise. D'Antoni hasn't had the same degree of success in NY because that franchise was a mess when he got there.

If you want to put the Showtime Lakers above them that's okay by me, but literally, according to the NBA's StatCube, Nash was on the best offense in the league 9 years in a row.

I consider Magic Johnson the best offensive player ever, and the above fact doesn't change that, but I don't see how you can say he was on the best offense 9 years in a row.

Re: "built on offense". Again, the offense went from being literally well below average, to all time great level by adding Steve Nash and Quentin Richardson. Hopefully it goes without saying that Quentin should not be in the conversation.

Funny, the team Nash left did better with out him, maintained a great ORtg, and their DRtg shot up once he went to PHX. Nash was a horrible defender, let's not sugar coat things. PHX had a great turn around because they got healthy and added a star to the roster.

And again, if we are to reference PHX's regular season team success....shouldn't we also speak of their shortcomings in the playoffs.

Well, I'll say again, THIS project is a great place to have this discussion...but you've already been in these discussions before. I don't understand why you're asking me to repeat arguments. It's fine for you to just acknowledge what others argue before explaining why you personally believe otherwise. But to answer:

-Lots of variables in what happened in Dallas. Key thing is though that they didn't utilize Nash the same way because the offense was built around Dirk Nowitzki. Since Dirk has not only been nominated but voted in at this point, seems pretty funny that we'd hold that against Nash.

Of course, if you simply don't believe that teams don't make equal use of all of their players' talents, then I get why you'd be confused: Because you're confused about basketball.

-Re: "playoff shortcomings". Negligible. They got "upset" twice, both times by the eventual champs led by a Top 10 player of all time who had virtually the same regular season record, the matchup edge, and Phoenix had key players hurt and/or missing. I don't pretend Phoenix won those titles, but to make it out like they became ineffective in the post-season is completely wrong.

Should we penalize the guy for being more one sided than other players? I don't see why. I mean, yes I do figure in versatility into the mix when judging players, but only within reason. I don't knock Shaq for not shooting 3's better because he shouldn't be shooting 3's, and if a coach makes him shoot 3's, all that tells me is that the coach is an idiot.

Of course we should penalize them. There are 2 sides of the court, and Nash was non-existent on one of them.

Okay, whenever you think I'm saying something stupid, you need to stop, and re-read until it makes sense, and ask questions if it never does.

Let me put it in math terms:

10 + 0 = 10
5 + 5 = 10

The question is: If that's the offense & defense of two different players, is there reason to say that the 2-way player is inherently superior to 1-sided player?

My friend, I JUST got through saying it was fine for you to think this opinion. You going through and trying to justify that opinion is not a response to my point.

To speak to the crux of what you're saying here though: Stockton never finished higher than 7th in MVP voting. Saying that he played in an era with stronger superstar talent is understandable, but saying he played in an era where it was so much stronger that a guy with 1 7th place finish in that era is the equivalent of 2 MVP wins in another era is silly. You don't even believe that yourself.

The truth is that you don't think Nash should have won MVPs, and that understandably shapes your opinions on how he stacks up against Stockton.

Again, MVP doesn't equal best player. Nash got more peak MVP love than Shaq, but what does that even mean. Stockton never had a narrative that yielded high MVP votes, how could he playing next to Malone. How could he be MVP when he wasn't the MVP of his own team?? His production still beats out Nash's at their peaks.

Please explain how KG is up at #13, and DRob isn't even in the conversation yet, when DRob anchored better defenses, and had more MVP shares. Afterall, you seem to be using team ratings, & MVP votes for Nash. Nash is the first guy where MVP voting seems to be a big criteria.

You just keep jumping around man.

MVP votes don't deviate strongly from All-NBA accolades. Disagree with them if you want, but they are by far the most reliable metric we have of which players are thought to be best.

Re: narratives. Sure, reasonable thing to bring up for why you disagree with votes. That's fine. However, it's not like we've never had 2 teammates in the top 5 of MVP voting. Stockton didn't get there because he was clearly weaker than Malone who himself was no lock to make top 5.

[TMACFORMVP]

Re: Isiah and Nash is an interesting comparison. It's true the Pistons calling card during their championship run was their defense; but Isiah was still the heart and soul of the team - the clear leader, and go-to scorer down the stretch of games. His game significantly went up in the playoffs, and his peak seasons are often underrated IMO. One thing I can't stand is when people compare Iverson to Isiah. People fail to realize that Isiah also had a four year peak where he was a 20/10 player in the league - had a season in which he led the league in assists, or anchored the top ORTG team in the league. Or it's a matter of people figuring in Isiah's earlier statistical years, and underrating the sort of impact he had on the championship teams because his stats weren't "as sexy."

83-84: Did 22/4/11 on roughly 47% shooting. Anchored the #1 ranked ORTG team in the NBA without a true floor spacer. Granted the three point shot wasn't a huge part of the game at the time, it's still interesting to note that outside of Isiah; the team went 10-76 from the three point line the ENTIRE season. They lost to a similar caliber Knicks squad in the first round, but Bernard King absolutely blew up in the playoff this season (35 PPG on 57%). The same Knicks team that took the defending champion Celtics to a grueling seven game series. Also note, this was the same series in which Isiah had the legendary 16 points in the final 94 seconds to force the game in OT.

84-85: Led the league in assists with nearly 14 per game! Even grabbed nearly five boards chipping in with the regular 21 PPG, and over 2 steals. They were still in the top 10 in OTRG, and Isiah clearly stepped up his game in the playoffs. 24/5/11 on 50% and took the 63 win Celtics to six games in the Conference semi-finals - while sweeping the Nets with Buck Williams, and MRR in the first round. A terrific regular season, and lost to a clearly superior team in the playoffs.

85-86: Isiah did 21/11, shot 49% from the field in the regular season - only other player outside of Magic to average over double digit assists. Not much more to say here, since it was rather unimpressive how they lost in the first round to the Hawks (despite Isiah doing 27/6/12 on 45% and even the rest of the supporting cast playing very well also).

86-87: The Pistons get Dantley, but Isiah puts up another 20/10 season, win over 50 games, and did 24/5/9 in the post-season on 45%. Swept a Bullets team led by a 24/11 Moses in the regular season, beat the 57 win Hawks led by Nique, and took the 59 win Celtic team to a grueling seven game series. Unfortunately Isiah is most remembered for the blunder of the pass in Game 5 which led the the Bird steal, and DJ layup - which obviously changed the entire series. Nonetheless the Pistons still had a chance to win it in Game 7, but were ousted by a ridiculous 37/9/9 insanely clutch, classic Bird performance eeking out a win by only three points.

87-88: Isiah's overall volume goes down to roughly 20/8 on 46%, but it's interesting to note, the second half of the season (meaning last 41 games), he was doing roughly the same volume but shooting nearly 50% from the field. The Pistons in the regular season were terrific defensively, but they were also ranked 6th in ORTG went to the Finals. Unfortunately Isiah got injured in Game 6 (still put up a legendary performance) but the impact of that injury was felt in Game 7, which the Pistons still had a chance to win, but came up short with a semi controversial loss in the final minute. Nonetheless, despite Isiah's slight drop in efficiency, his play in the playoffs was huge, roughly 22/5/9 - again the clear cut best player on the Pistons team.

88-89: 18/3/8 on 46% from the floor, Pistons once again top 10 in the league in ORTG. Ironically enough, this was the first championship for the Pistons, but also Isiah's worst individual statistical playoff run but because Dumars won Finals MVP, almost everyone ignores the sort of Finals impact he had. But 21/3/7 on nearly 49% from the floor is nothing to sneeze at, including a 16 point first half in Game 1 to put the game out of reach in the first quarter itself. Dumars was the better player in that series, but Isiah was still the anchor to their offense, the best player during the regular season.

89-90: Isiah does 18/9 in the regular season, does his usual "up your performance" in the playoffs thing with 21/6/8 on 46% in the post season - 28/5/7 on 54% in the Finals, including classic down the stretch performances. He was even more efficient than Dumars in their playoff stretch, and solidified the Pistons among the best teams of the decade. I don't think Dumars particularly had more an impact on the Pistons team in the regular season either, where he was in fact beat out Isiah for the All-NBA team.

I mean we're talking about a PG that had a stretch of eight straight season in which he averaged at least 18 points (5x over 20 PPG), and 8 assists (4x over 10 APG). We're talking about a guy that was a HUGE playoff performer, six post seasons with at least 20/4/8 with ridiculously clutch and memorable playoff performances. This same guy was the leader for two championship teams, and is ridiculously underrated in terms of All-NBA/MVP accolades.

Still no problem with Nash, I think his peak is better, but Isiah's overall body of work might be more impressive? Still, such a toss up, trying to think out loud who I'd lean towards.

[penbeast0]

His defensive impact in the NBA is questionable at best. . . not like he was asked to score 25+ ppg, though due to his foul prone-ness he'd rarely play 36+ minutes).

His NBA defensive impact, especially after the second surgery in 84, is questionable . . . but are we really questioning whether it is comparable to the self admitted "worst defensive player in the NBA" Charles Barkley?

And, in his prime, he was averaging well over 36 minutes a game so I don't know where you get that he was too foul prone to play big minutes, 4 seasons in a row over 41mpg! . . . and for his first 8 seasons in the league he averaged 22 ppg so not like he was asked to score a lot LESS than 25ppg. (He did have offensive stars Dan Issell and Louis Dampier playing with him in the ABA so it wasn't a one man show if that's what you meant).

The thing was, in KEN, they made a conscious decision to get the ball to him in 75 and 76 which resulted in a title. Then he went to Chicago and for some reason was consistently the 3rd or 4th option on that team (behind stiffs like Wilbur Holland, David Greenwood, Mickey Johnson, Ricky Sobers, etc. in addition to Theus . . . and it's not like any of those guys other than Mickey Johnson had a defensive rep either) even while setting the all-time NBA efficiency marks. How difficult is it to design an offense to get the ball in to a 7-3 center, even one who isn't terribly mobile?

San Antonio was after his second surgery and they had a rep (with Denver) as the runninest, gunninest guys in the league . . . they just didn't bother to wait for Artis to get downcourt. Look at that team when he got there, Gervin/career 20 ppg scorer Mike Mitchell/playground legend Gene "Tinkerbell" Banks, super speedster Johnny Moore . . . that's no defense and shoot the ball the minute it crosses the top of the key offense. Makes the Nash/D'Antoni offense in Phoenix look like the Carolina 4 corners. Gilmore was actually LAST on among the starters in shots, 5 reserves shot more than he did! Same the next year. Okay, Gilmore wasn't mobile or aggressive but Washington got the ball in more to Georghe Muresan than either Chicago or San Antonio did to the most efficient offensive player in the history of the league. There's a reason the 70s had a big rep as the most selfish, me oriented era of pro basketball.

Is it Gilmore's fault that he didn't get shots? Some . . . personality and incompatable style. Is it his fault that the above mentioned team didn't play good defense? Hell, Dikembe Mutombo and Mark Eaton platooning couldn't have made those teams average defensively with that style and that personnel. It was just a bad fit and instead of fitting the team to Gilmore, they tried to fit him to the team.

But his peak in Kentucky when they used him as a defensive anchor with some outside shooters to spread the floor and passers who tried to get him the ball, he was pretty damn incredible. There's a reason he was valued even more than Julius in a pre-merger survey of owners.

[penbeast0]

To paint a big target on myself in the other nomination debate too . . .

OK, let me get the Nash v. Stockton argument straight. Nash proves he was a better player despite Stockton being roughly as efficient and with better assists and assist/turnover numbers plus better defense because . . . Nash in Phoenix had great team offensive efficiency and lots of MVP love. Oh and Stockton's numbers went down in Utah's greatest team seasons. And, it's not particularly important that Stockton went a round further (to the Finals) than Nash ever did.

Now Isiah also has poor team offensive efficiency (much worse than Utah), a lot less MVP love than Nash (closer to Stockton's level though a bit higher as befits a scorer), and Isiah's numbers went down in Detroit's great team seasons. However, unlike the Stockton v. Nash debate, Isiah is much less efficient than either Stockton or Nash and unlike Stockton, Isiah's defense was never recognized as anything special by All-Def awards (I happen to think Isiah's defense was pretty good, though probably a little behind Stockton's). And yet Isiah is also easily ahead of Stockton because his individual numbers (okay, only his volume scoring) are higher and the Pistons went a round further in two years (rings) than Stockton ever did (Finals lower).

For some reason it seems as if the same people that are supporting Nash shouldn't then be saying that Isiah is their next choice . . . seems a bit disingenuous.

[Black Feet]

Vote: Pettit
Nominate: Nash

[An Unbiased Fan]

If you want to put the Showtime Lakers above them that's okay by me, but literally, according to the NBA's StatCube, Nash was on the best offense in the league 9 years in a row.

I consider Magic Johnson the best offensive player ever, and the above fact doesn't change that, but I don't see how you can say he was on the best offense 9 years in a row.

I don't use Statscube to rank offenses. there are a myriad of factors at play when evaluating offense. That PHX offense didn't look great in the halfcourt, for example. In the playoffs that offense didn't impress that much either.

It's nice that PHX put up great numbers, but Stockton put up better stats than Nash, and had the better ORtgs if we want to go that route.

Re: "built on offense". Again, the offense went from being literally well below average, to all time great level by adding Steve Nash and Quentin Richardson. Hopefully it goes without saying that Quentin should not be in the conversation.

They also had a full year under D'Antoni. A lineup of Nash, Amare, JJ, Marion, and Q is pretty damn great offensively. The open court SSOL style of play elevated the whole team, including Nash, whose numbers skyrocketed at age 30. Meanwhile, Dallas won 6 more games in 2005 without Nash.

Well, I'll say again, THIS project is a great place to have this discussion...but you've already been in these discussions before. I don't understand why you're asking me to repeat arguments. It's fine for you to just acknowledge what others argue before explaining why you personally believe otherwise. But to answer:

-Lots of variables in what happened in Dallas. Key thing is though that they didn't utilize Nash the same way because the offense was built around Dirk Nowitzki. Since Dirk has not only been nominated but voted in at this point, seems pretty funny that we'd hold that against Nash.

Of course, if you simply don't believe that teams don't make equal use of all of their players' talents, then I get why you'd be confused: Because you're confused about basketball.

That's the funny thing. The Jazz offense was built around Malone, yet Stockton still put up unequalled production. His MPG and USG% is really no different than Nash's throughout their career. How exactly was Nash not being "utilized", because he sure had the ball in his hands quite a bit when i saw him play in Dallas.

-Re: "playoff shortcomings". Negligible. They got "upset" twice, both times by the eventual champs led by a Top 10 player of all time who had virtually the same regular season record, the matchup edge, and Phoenix had key players hurt and/or missing. I don't pretend Phoenix won those titles, but to make it out like they became ineffective in the post-season is completely wrong.

If you're going to give Nash credit for PHX in the regular season, then you need to give him blame in the playoffs. Those Suns teams were stifled offensively when they were forced into playing halfcourt. Does he get no blame for this?

Okay, whenever you think I'm saying something stupid, you need to stop, and re-read until it makes sense, and ask questions if it never does.

Let me put it in math terms:

10 + 0 = 10
5 + 5 = 10

The question is: If that's the offense & defense of two different players, is there reason to say that the 2-way player is inherently superior to 1-sided player?

You asked if it was a factor, not if one player is a 10/0 and the other a 5/5.

Anyway...

Stockton = 10 + 4 = 14
Nash = 10 + 0 = 10

You just keep jumping around man.

MVP votes don't deviate strongly from All-NBA accolades. Disagree with them if you want, but they are by far the most reliable metric we have of which players are thought to be best.

Re: narratives. Sure, reasonable thing to bring up for why you disagree with votes. That's fine. However, it's not like we've never had 2 teammates in the top 5 of MVP voting. Stockton didn't get there because he was clearly weaker than Malone who himself was no lock to make top 5.

Hmm....

Wilt = 7 All-NBA 1st teams
Russell = 3 All-NBA 1st teams

And this is during the same era. Again, Nash didn't do better than 3rd team with Dirk, nor did he make Top 10 in MVP voting. Never mind the fact that Stockton was compete ting against Magic, Isiah and GP.

[ThaRegul8r]

Wilt = 7 All-NBA 1st teams
Russell = 3 All-NBA 1st teams

And this is during the same era.

Many writers didn't understand at the time what Russell was doing, even as many people today still don't, despite the fact that we now have had people such as Dean Oliver and Neil Payne quantify Russell's tremendous impact. (The players, on the other hand, the guys who actually played with and against him, did.) Additionally, Russell was... difficult with the media, whereas Chamberlain was outgoing and always had something to say. (We haven't seen media voters have their relationship with certain athletes reflected in their voting, right?)

One should really look deeper than Basketball-Reference.com...

[ElGee]

If you're going to give Nash credit for PHX in the regular season, then you need to give him blame in the playoffs. Those Suns teams were stifled offensively when they were forced into playing halfcourt. Does he get no blame for this?

Should he get blame for something that you have made up? No, I don't think so. It's ridiculous to talk to you about Steve Nash because for the last year I've seen every single one of your "points" totally and comprehensively refuted and a thread later you are espousing the same misinformation.

Phoenix's offensive rating in the 2005 PS was 118.2. Their average opponent DRtg was 102.0! (+16.2!!) They didn't lose because of Nash's offensive shortcomings. Nash has been amazing at times in the playoffs. Why? Steve Nash is better in the halfcourt than in transition. This has been explained numerous times, both with stats and with the darn game film. Yet you keep talking about this as some SSOL phenomenon or a systemic function.

Oh, and for those wondering, the Pho offensive ratings in the PS were: 2006 113.7 (+9.0), 2007 110.6 (+6.7), and in 2010 117.8 (+12.6).

You don't simply compare players by looking at ppg and apg. And if you do, I will assume your Adrian Dantley nomination is coming up soon.

[penbeast0]

Wilt = 7 All-NBA 1st teams
Russell = 3 All-NBA 1st teams

And this is during the same era.

Many writers didn't understand at the time what Russell was doing, even as many people today still don't, despite the fact that we now have had people such as Dean Oliver and Neil Payne quantify Russell's tremendous impact. (The players, on the other hand, the guys who actually played with and against him, did.) Additionally, Russell was... difficult with the media, whereas Chamberlain was outgoing and always had something to say. (We haven't seen media voters have their relationship with certain athletes reflected in their voting, right?)

One should really look deeper than Basketball-Reference.com...

Heck, I'm still trying to get people to look AT B-R.com intelligently . . . looking beyond is why we have posters like you

[An Unbiased Fan]

Wilt = 7 All-NBA 1st teams
Russell = 3 All-NBA 1st teams

And this is during the same era.

Many writers didn't understand at the time what Russell was doing, even as many people today still don't, despite the fact that we now have had people such as Dean Oliver and Neil Payne quantify Russell's tremendous impact. (The players, on the other hand, the guys who actually played with and against him, did.) Additionally, Russell was... difficult with the media, whereas Chamberlain was outgoing and always had something to say. (We haven't seen media voters have their relationship with certain athletes reflected in their voting, right?)

One should really look deeper than Basketball-Reference.com...

Bro, I'm actually not disagreeing with you on this. In fact, what you're saying about context being needed in regards to things like All-NBA teams, or MVP voting is what I have been arguing.

[ElGee]

Btw, the top PS offenses (since 1980) by raw ORtg, with at least 2 series played:

**Later I will adjust for opp avg. Drtg

1. 1987 Lakers 119.9
2. 1995 Suns 118.4
3. 2005 Suns 118.2
4. 2010 Suns 117.8
5. 1991 Bulls 117.2

29. 2006 Suns 113.7

The Magic Lakers are in the top-25 6 times (84-89)
The Bird Celtics are in the top-25 4 times (86-87, 91-92)

I find the number relative to opp DRtg more indicative of how well a team was playing, but wanted to give everyone an idea of raw offensive efficiency and where some of these teams stand. The 05 Suns look like they will the best relative offensive in playoff history. To me, that sums up Nash perfectly: make him a scorer, and he will still make the offense elite. Make him a distributor and (basically) regardless of who is out there, he will make the offense elite.

For the time being, here are the same offenses sorted by ORtg relative to playoff league avg.:
1. 2005 Suns +10.4
2. 2010 Suns +9.2
3. 2009 Nuggets +9.1
4. 2002 Mavericks +8.4
5. 1987 Lakers +7.8

22. 2007 Suns +5.7
25. 2006 Suns +5.5

[ThaRegul8r]

Wilt = 7 All-NBA 1st teams
Russell = 3 All-NBA 1st teams

And this is during the same era.

Many writers didn't understand at the time what Russell was doing, even as many people today still don't, despite the fact that we now have had people such as Dean Oliver and Neil Payne quantify Russell's tremendous impact. (The players, on the other hand, the guys who actually played with and against him, did.) Additionally, Russell was... difficult with the media, whereas Chamberlain was outgoing and always had something to say. (We haven't seen media voters have their relationship with certain athletes reflected in their voting, right?)

One should really look deeper than Basketball-Reference.com...

Heck, I'm still trying to get people to look AT B-R.com intelligently

[ThaRegul8r]

Wilt = 7 All-NBA 1st teams
Russell = 3 All-NBA 1st teams

And this is during the same era.

Many writers didn't understand at the time what Russell was doing, even as many people today still don't, despite the fact that we now have had people such as Dean Oliver and Neil Payne quantify Russell's tremendous impact. (The players, on the other hand, the guys who actually played with and against him, did.) Additionally, Russell was... difficult with the media, whereas Chamberlain was outgoing and always had something to say. (We haven't seen media voters have their relationship with certain athletes reflected in their voting, right?)

One should really look deeper than Basketball-Reference.com...

Bro, I'm actually not disagreeing with you on this. In fact, what you're saying about context being needed in regards to things like All-NBA teams, or MVP voting is what I have been arguing.

Hmm. I seem to remember you saying this:

I'm also interested in why so many put Russell into consideration, yet not Wilt, who bested Russell on the All-NBA 1st team, 7 to 3.

I just can't wrap my head around Wilt getting 7 All-NBA 1st teams, and Russell only getting 3. That's pretty striking.

I would hate for it to seem like I'm piling on Russell, but since he's in contention for the #1 spot, I feel compelled to point out a few more things.

1) I tend to feel that Russell dominance, even within his own era, is a bit overstated. Amongst the Top 10 candidates, Russell is the ONLY one with less than 6 All-NBA 1st team nods. Even more amazing is that he barely has half of that total at 3. Now competition definitely factors into this since both MJ & KAJ probably had the easiest time getting 1st teams nods during their eras, but even still, it's hard to call Russ the GOAT when he wasn't even rated the #1 center 9 out of 12 years.

Evidently I was mistaken.

[Baller 24]

Vote: LeBron James

Nominate: Steve Nash

Just got a chance to come back to this thread 5-6 hours later, I've got a lot of questions to numerous posts.

[drza]

RE: Pettit

Last year, when I joined the RPoY project, Pettit was one of the players that I was MOST interested in learning more about, precisely because of the way he's been treated in this thread. I would always hear about the 2 MVPs, then I would hear about the championship during the Russell era, and that Pettit scored 50 in game 7 as an allusion that he always stepped up in the postseason. By the time we got to the 60s/50s, I was ready to be wowed.

Only...I wasn't.

Yes, he was obviously great. Yes, he has some great accolades in his career. But consider his competition right now: LeBron James, David Robinson and Charles Barkley. The one thing that, to some extent or another, has worked against all 3 of those players is their postseason history. But the thing I learned in RPoY, that hasn't been mentioned ONCE in this project, is that Pettit, too, tended to see consistent declines in the postseason. To whit:

In 1956 Pettit won the MVP, averaging 26/16 on 43% FG with 10 FTA per game. In the 1956 postseason, though, Petit's numbers dropped to 19 points/10 boards on 37% FG, 8.9 FTA.

In 1957, Pettit again was huge in the regular season but his box score stats went down a bit in the postseason. For ease of reading I'll reference the PER/Win Shares numbers, but don't focus on "oh, another advanced stat!" Instead, take it for what it is, an easy way to indicate that Petit's production slid in the postseason.

Reg season: 28.1 PER, .224 WS/48
Post season: 25.1 PER, .186 WS/48

In 1958 Petit's team beat Russell's Celtics to win the only title of his career, which was capped with the 50-point game 7. But what ISN'T mentioned is that once again, Petit's production fell way off in the playoffs compared to the regular season. Oh, yeah, and another important theme is introduced:

Pettit regular season: 26.3 PER, .209 WS/48
Pettit post season: 22.6 PER, .134 WS/48
Cliff Hagan reg season: 22.6 PER, .22 WS/48
Hagan Post season: 27.5 PER, .312 WS/48

See, Pettit's numbers slid, but the reason the team was still there for his great game 7 is because Hagan went nuts in the postseason to keep them in it. Hagan, in fact, really impressed me as we went through the RPoY because he so often seemed to have the huge playoffs while Pettit...didn't. Oh yeah, and before we go too far with the "Pettit beat Russell!" theme, we should remember that Russell got hurt in game 3 of the Finals and missed several games. So even if someone were giving "beat the champ!" extra credit, you should temper that.

In 1959, Pettit was the MVP again. Pettit had another great regular season (28.2 PER, .246 WS/48) over Hagan (22.7 PER, .209 WS/48), but once again in the postseason his numbers declined (Pettit postseason 22.9 PER, .188 WS/48) and Hagan exploded (26.2 PER, .298 WS/48) to appear to lead the team in the postseason.

Conclusion: Look, you guys know I'm not one that puts everything on the box score stats. And of course, Pettit was so long ago that very little outside info is available to make other objective evaluations. But from what we know of his game, Pettit wasn't known to be a dominant defender or a huge offense facillitator, which suggests that the box scores may have captured his impact reasonably well. Also, more so than that it's an advanced stat, the fact that Pettit was consistently declining in the postseason compared to his regular season is potentially problematic. ESPECIALLY because that is the exact knock that we have been using on Robinson and LeBron. Just because Pettit had a Hagan to lean on when times got tough and happened to catch a great team at a point where their best player was injured...I just don't see where he can generate any separation from LeBron and DRob. As an individual player, it seems to me that Pettit has similar postseason struggles, and if we keep that in mind that LeBron, Barkley and even Robinson have a strong argument against him.

[Baller 24]

It's nice that PHX put up great numbers, but Stockton put up better stats than Nash, and had the better ORtgs if we want to go that route.

1) Please do not repeat or allow others to repeat arguments, it's derailing the thread.

2) How is it that when Stockton goes on his clear decline, BOOM Utah starts hitting career records in terms of franchise wins, and post-season play? Not only that, but their ORtg overall increases to hit record highs WHILE he's on the decline, why is it that?

3) No ones stating Stockton didn't put up great individual numbers, but we're asking more or less why didn't they translate in positive team success? Nash did it, given limited teammates, various schemes, and different coaches.

They also had a full year under D'Antoni. A lineup of Nash, Amare, JJ, Marion, and Q is pretty damn great offensively. The open court SSOL style of play elevated the whole team, including Nash, whose numbers skyrocketed at age 30. Meanwhile, Dallas won 6 more games in 2005 without Nash.

The final 31 games of the R/S in '04, the Suns went 10-31 with D'Antoni handling the offensive scheme. JJ, Amar'e, & Marion were all healthy. Nash not only elevated D'Antoni's personal system, but he did it on various other coaches and schemes. So not sure if that argument flys.

And while Dallas won more games without Nash, are you sure you want to use that as an argument? It's ridiculous and inhumane to state this, considering there were various trades that happened where other than Nash, Jamison & Walker--2 key contributors offensively in an ISO scheme were traded. It wasn't just Nash that was different.

That's the funny thing. The Jazz offense was built around Malone, yet Stockton still put up unequalled production. His MPG and USG% is really no different than Nash's throughout their career. How exactly was Nash not being "utilized", because he sure had the ball in his hands quite a bit when i saw him play in Dallas.

1) Stockton was allowed to run and facilitate the system Jerry Sloan set-up for years and years, Nash wasn't allowed to do the same for Dallas. That's pretty clear, and it's been pointed out by various individuals in this thread.

2) Dallas ran their offensive system primarily on a one-on-one basis through Dirk, and secondarily on a one-on-one basis through Finley, he was also seeing significant minutes from NVX. So NO, the Dallas offensive system was not utilized to completely implement Nash's overall tools.

If you're going to give Nash credit for PHX in the regular season, then you need to give him blame in the playoffs. Those Suns teams were stifled offensively when they were forced into playing halfcourt. Does he get no blame for this?

No they weren't, it's not guarantee but different officiating in '07 (suspensions) & health reasons (Joe Johnson in '05) could maybe even BEAT the Spurs in both seasons. While he can deserve some of the blame, what's more that he could have done? He put up two absolutely steller series' against the Spurs in both playoff runs, he was effective & efficient from every role, while facilitating at his finest.

I'll put it this way, in 2006, Kobe Bryant was up 3-1 in the series against the Suns, why don't you "blame" Bryant? (doubt you ever will blame Bryant, even if he wiped 5 billion ppl), but isn't he responsible for closing out the series? Yet I keep reading arguments that it was strictly more definite on this team.

Hmm....

Wilt = 7 All-NBA 1st teams
Russell = 3 All-NBA 1st teams

And this is during the same era. Again, Nash didn't do better than 3rd team with Dirk, nor did he make Top 10 in MVP voting. Never mind the fact that Stockton was compete ting against Magic, Isiah and GP.

Why does John Stockton get a "pass" for this metric of voting again? Because you said so? I see.

It's been consistent with the top players in the entire league throughout league history. It's not a coincidence that the Jazz recorded career highs when Stockton was on the decline, that their offense actually got BETTER when Stockton hit lows in his individual career.

It's not a coincidence that given his individual peak that in relation with MVP voting Kevin Johnson, Mark Price, & Terry Porter all placed ahead of him. His individual statistics just didn't impact the Jazz as well as any of the guys I'm listing---Kidd, Payton, Isiah, Nash, they've all got one thing in common. They've all been considered a super-star or a top 6 player in the league on at least two different occasions. John Stockton hasn't, no excuses, you keep bringing up "excuses" reasons why, stop it.

FACTS are that it's happened, live with it, and evaluate from that, you've made excuses and statements, but they're being recycled page after page throughout this thread by numerous posters, please stop with the repetitiveness, it's not taking this discussion anywhere.

[An Unbiased Fan]

If you're going to give Nash credit for PHX in the regular season, then you need to give him blame in the playoffs. Those Suns teams were stifled offensively when they were forced into playing halfcourt. Does he get no blame for this?

Should he get blame for something that you have made up? No, I don't think so. It's ridiculous to talk to you about Steve Nash because for the last year I've seen every single one of your "points" totally and comprehensively refuted and a thread later you are espousing the same misinformation.

You disagreeing with my points doesn't "refute" them. You have your opinion, and I have mine.

Phoenix's offensive rating in the 2005 PS was 118.2. Their average opponent DRtg was 102.0! (+16.2!!) They didn't lose because of Nash's offensive shortcomings. Nash has been amazing at times in the playoffs. Why? Steve Nash is better in the halfcourt than in transition. This has been explained numerous times, both with stats and with the darn game film. Yet you keep talking about this as some SSOL phenomenon or a systemic function.

Forcing the Suns into playing halfcourt ball was the blue print to slowing down that offense. The main team that had the personnel to do that effectively who they faced, were the Spurs. And even with HCA both times, they fell to SA.

The Spurs beat the Suns in 5 games, and while PHX posted a gaudy 118.2 overall playoff ORtg. Their ORtg actually was 113.9 against SA. Why was SA able to do this you ask? Because they forced PHX into the halfcourt more than any other opponent. And when you're a one-dimensional team, focussing on offense only, it's a huge problem when you're brought back down to Earth.

Nash's ORtg during that series was 115.4, down from his 119 overall playoff ORtg.

Oh, and for those wondering, the Pho offensive ratings in the PS were: 2006 113.7 (+9.0), 2007 110.6 (+6.7), and in 2010 117.8 (+12.6).

Yeh, and in 2006, a #7 seeded Lakers team took them to 7 games by forcing them into the halfcourt. The Clips forced them into 7 games much the same way.

In 2007, SA again forced PHX to play halfcourt a lot, and their ORtg was 107.7 during that series, down from 110.6 during the overall post-season.

I never said PHX's offense sucked. but ti's clear that they dropped offensively against teams that could force them into the halfcourt more. They never went all the way because run & gun teams almost always struggle in the half court. Only the Showtime Lakers were able to play both styles effectively.

You don't simply compare players by looking at ppg and apg. And if you do, I will assume your Adrian Dantley nomination is coming up soon.

If i were simply comparing based on PPG & APG, then you would have a point. But I have also brought up the massive longevity argument, and the massive defensive edge.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Hmm. I seem to remember you saying this:

I brought up these questions, and many posters including yourself added context to the situation back in the 60's. I listened to the points made on this, and even gave you credit personally for the insights you added, and it DID sway my opinion on Wilt vs Russell.

That pretty much the same thing I'm trying to do with Stockton and his MVP votes. It's not about dismissing accolades, but putting them into the right context.

[ElGee]

If you're going to give Nash credit for PHX in the regular season, then you need to give him blame in the playoffs. Those Suns teams were stifled offensively when they were forced into playing halfcourt. Does he get no blame for this?

Should he get blame for something that you have made up? No, I don't think so. It's ridiculous to talk to you about Steve Nash because for the last year I've seen every single one of your "points" totally and comprehensively refuted and a thread later you are espousing the same misinformation.

You disagreeing with my points doesn't "refute" them. You have your opinion, and I have mine.

It's not disagreeing with a point when you disseminate false information.

Phoenix's offensive rating in the 2005 PS was 118.2. Their average opponent DRtg was 102.0! (+16.2!!) They didn't lose because of Nash's offensive shortcomings. Nash has been amazing at times in the playoffs. Why? Steve Nash is better in the halfcourt than in transition. This has been explained numerous times, both with stats and with the darn game film. Yet you keep talking about this as some SSOL phenomenon or a systemic function.

Forcing the Suns into playing halfcourt ball was the blue print to slowing down that offense. The main team that had the personnel to do that effectively who they faced, were the Spurs. And even with HCA both times, they fell to SA.

The Spurs beat the Suns in 5 games, and while PHX posted a gaudy 118.2 overall playoff ORtg. Their ORtg actually was 113.9 against SA. Why was SA able to do this you ask? Because they forced PHX into the halfcourt more than any other opponent. And when you're a one-dimensional team, focussing on offense only, it's a huge problem when you're brought back down to Earth.

Nash's ORtg during that series was 115.4, down from his 119 overall playoff ORtg.

The 2005 Spurs held opponents to 98.8 points/100...and you think they "brought them back down to Earth" by allowing 114 points per 100?? (Not 113.9, technically) Are you serious?

Oh, and for those wondering, the Pho offensive ratings in the PS were: 2006 113.7 (+9.0), 2007 110.6 (+6.7), and in 2010 117.8 (+12.6).

Yeh, and in 2006, a #7 seeded Lakers team took them to 7 games by forcing them into the halfcourt. The Clips forced them into 7 games much the same way.

In 2007, SA again forced PHX to play halfcourt a lot, and their ORtg was 107.7 during that series, down from 110.6 during the overall post-season.

I never said PHX's offense sucked. but ti's clear that they dropped offensively against teams that could force them into the halfcourt more. They never went all the way because run & gun teams almost always struggle in the half court. Only the Showtime Lakers were able to play both styles effectively.

Why do you think the Suns lost that series to the Spurs? Why do you think LA almost beat Phoenix in 2006? Do you think it was because Phoenix didn't score a lot of points? Or do you think it was because of something else?